Gary Spedding2015-03-31T14:09:42-04:00Gary Speddinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=gary-speddingCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Gary SpeddingGood old fashioned elbow grease.LGBTQ Palestinians and the Solidarity Role We Should Be Playingtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.36814502013-07-31T07:55:48-04:002013-09-30T05:12:01-04:00Gary Speddinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-spedding/
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights remain an unfortunately controversial and even strenuously avoided human rights issue in the Middle East and North Africa today. Unsurprisingly, LGBTQ Palestinians report that they face uniquely nuanced, complex, and often harrowing struggles on multitudinous fronts.

The Palestinian reality for those identifying as LGBTQ is one of very real stigmatisation amongst their families and communities, often resulting in social rejection and even physical violence. Social attitudes and religious taboos about sexuality and gender evidently need to be challenged, with increased social engagement, empowering LGBTQ Palestinians to actively utilize education, and the development of leadership skills to take a leading role in their own liberation, both as queer people inside a deeply stigmatised and culturally conservative society and as Palestinians living under Israeli occupation.

We here in the UK and Europe must begin recognising that western representations of Arabs, LGBTQ Palestinians in particular, have a tendency of ignoring the wonderful diversity of those people groups as a whole. It is important that we also acknowledge that Palestinians and Arabs in general hail from many locations, each with very different social, legal, and economic circumstances.

Ultimately, it is not advisable for westerners to make sweeping or negative generalizations about "Palestinians" as this woefully simplifies the diversity of communities and ignores the geopolitical reality faced on the ground.

This is where people in the international community need to take a step back, think carefully about how we approach different LGBTQ issues in other parts of the world, and then reflect upon the fact that different cultures and societies have the right to develop and 'liberalise' in their own unique ways.

An essential is for such progress and development to be led by those whom are indigenous to the area and inside these cultures. I would therefore introduce readers to an organisation founded by a group of LGBTQ Palestinians living in Israel and the occupied territories: - alQaws (القوس meaning "rainbow"), became the first and only legally recognised Palestinian run LGBTQ organisation in November 2007.

On their website they state that "dominant western constructs of queer identity do not have the same relevance for many Palestinians, who are left without a culturally meaningful set of narratives around which to organise a movement and understand their identities and desires. The result is that most LGBTQ Palestinians face two equally unsatisfactory options. One is to conform to local cultural norms and live outwardly "heterosexual" lives. The other is to risk persecution by adopting an identity that many Palestinians associate with the west."

This resulted in a unique approach, whereby Palestinians within alQaws state their determination to "not simply mimic an existing model of queer identity or community, but to provide a social space for LGBTQ Palestinians to independently engage in a dialogue about their own visions and ideals for a community."

Israeli military occupation

LGBTQ Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories regularly face discrimination, denials of civil and human rights, and other forms of violence and inequality as a result of their Palestinian identity.

As with all minorities, Palestinians who identify as LGBTQ are disproportionately affected, not only by Israel's occupation - and the myth that Israel is a sanctuary for gay Palestinians - but also the complex politicisation of the pink and queer label within the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

According to Katherine Franke, a professor at Columbia Law School, who boycotted the Equality Forum's 2012 LGBT Summit in Israel, there are many instances where the Shin Bet (Israeli security Agency) has had a policy of blackmailing gay Palestinians and "threatening to oust them unless they become informants against their own people". As a result, LGBTQ Palestinians are seen as having "a reputation as collaborators with Israel - as a result some of the homophobia gays and lesbians in Palestine experience is the direct product of the occupation itself" she said.

Perhaps readers can understand my frustration, those uncritically supportive of Israel and the occupation are linking into Israel's support for gay rights. This isolates LGBTQ from other human rights issues and sets a worrying precedent. In my opinion it is deplorable to misuse the pink image to seek support, not only for a particular country, but also a specific set of right-wing policies vis-à-vis a vulnerable and oppressed people.

Most demonization of Palestinians regarding LGBTQ matters oozes from propagandists proclaiming "It's okay to be Gay in Israel" [as opposed to the Palestinian territories], of course glossing over, many facts, including that the Palestinian Authority has not legislated either for or against homosexuality nor have homosexuals been put to death as a result of the present legal system.

When I see such lines of thought I ask myself, has cross-liberation and intersectionalism suddenly perished?

The international community simply cannot overlook the geopolitics of the region nor the immensely different cultural nuances in play.

The solidarity role westerners should play

Frequently viewed as barbaric, backwards and fiercely conservative, the Middle East must be looked at from a perspective of intersectional solidarity, linking LGBTQ rights into the struggle for other basic human rights and the end to a military occupation that oversees countless human rights abuses. The Middle East is also not as medieval as some would have us believe, as is proven with the recent, very welcome, statement from the Lebanese Psychiatric Society against gay conversion therapy.

Surely we of western origin can play a positive, yet non-imperialist role in supporting autonomous groups - made up of indigenous peoples - as they seek a non-hierarchical society that recognises - and values - the diversity of sexual and gender identities in Palestine.

In conclusion, I would postulate that supporting & empowering LGBTQ organisations, particularly alQaws, throughout Middle Eastern countries, rather than denigrating their entire society with crass orientalist comparisons to our own society and culture should be an obvious step for any LGBTQ human rights activist.]]>It's Time to Put Consent in the Northern Irish Curriculumtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.34244782013-06-12T06:30:16-04:002013-08-12T05:12:01-04:00Gary Speddinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-spedding/
Despite the defeat, our government cannot avoid the conversation that has begun around PSHE and perhaps equally as important, the subject of RSE (Relationship and Sex Education). One question some are now asking is whether devolved assemblies' (Scotland and Northern Ireland), will take the initiative and introduce legislation of their own in respective jurisdictions.

In Northern Ireland, there is already curriculum covering relationship and sex education, but, difficulty comes in the lack of consistent implementation. This must be addressed urgently by the Education Minister, John O'Dowd. I hope that he and indeed many others will share in the opinion, that implementing PSHE and RSE (Relationship and Sex Education) as compulsory topics of study in the NI curriculum would be an exceptionally positive initial step forward for Northern Ireland.

Reforming the education sector could potentially lead to robust change in the delivery of consistent sex education. If done correctly we will gain headway, mostly benefiting young people when it comes to issues of surrounding sex and relationships. Education is proven to be the best way at improving attitudes towards sexual orientation (preventing homophobic bullying), sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape.

Presently data, statistics and reports in Northern Ireland are lacking when it comes to research on sexual violence, harassment and consent in the education system. This is abundantly apparent in the latest fact-sheet outlining current law and policy on the teaching of relationship and sexuality education (RSE) in Northern Ireland's schools. Shamefully the word consent appears only once throughout the entire document and relates to age as opposed to the wider topic of what consent actually is and why positive consent needs to be instilled in our young people.

When speaking to individuals who have just finished high school or sixth form in Northern Ireland there appears to be a general trend in views towards sex education in that many individuals weren't getting taught anything to do with consent, mostly learning inaccurate information they were getting from their peers and the internet. Some schools have reportedly only given the bare minimum information to students for example the process of reproduction (scientific explanation) or discussions around changes in hormones, new 'urges' and physical appearance.

Worryingly an increasing number of schools in Northern Ireland like to handle sex education through organisations such as Precious Life, who teach that abortion is wrong full stop and ignore discussions on sexual orientation entirely. Homosexuality was never even mentioned in any class (nor any other form of sexuality for that matter) according to students from one particular school when I spoke to them.

This reveals a possible negative trend in places that don't follow RSE as part of a structured curriculum and where external organisations are able to come in, 'fulfill' the required components under current RSE guidelines satisfactorily enough for government standards, leaving young people even more confused and susceptible to gendered stereotypes. It also creates social acceptance of what is known as 'rape culture'. Clearly we have a serious problem on our hands for the future unless something changes soon.

Of course it is difficult to highlight the full extent of problems, particularly around delivery of relationship and sex education in Northern Ireland when we lack robust research and detailed statistical data. Without this information there is no evidence to utilize when determining if statutory obligations are being taken seriously by schools or not.

Compounding this issue further are statistics we do have revealing that 23% of teachers in Northern Ireland said they were not confident about teaching RSE as a subject and respondents stated they felt most discomfort when teaching about bisexual (50%) and homosexual relationships (41%).

The Department of Education (DENI)'s own research reports seem to dodge the subject of sexual violence, harassment and assault almost entirely. The latest available report simply discusses that bullying in schools through "name calling with sexual meaning" should be monitored and acknowledges that "bullying poses a threat to the healthy growth and development of children and their exploration of sexual nature and sexual identity."

In essence DENI is not doing enough to address the fact that sexual bullying and harassment are routine in UK schools. Sexual violence is a huge problem throughout the UK - Northern Ireland being no exception to this and we should be proactively dealing with the oppression found within society in which, women, are already stuck in a gendered power dynamic of systematic discrimination and violence which perpetrators absurdly then try to lay blame for upon the victims.

Research covering the whole of the United Kingdom recently found that 21% of girls and 11% of boys experience some form of child sexual abuse, 23% of women and 3% of men experience sexual assault as an adult, and 5% of women and 0.4% of men experience rape (Rape Crisis statistics).

Information available highlights that we must tackle these serious issues, first and foremost by mandating the way in which RSE should be emphasized in school teaching, with a focus on sexual violence, sexual assault, and why it is categorically wrong. The government must review how the current system's inconsistency allows what is taught to vary widely from constituency to constituency, and from school to school.

Supporting survivors of sexual violence is vital but another scope must critically review the root causes of sexual violence and how they manifest as a result of inadequate teaching at schools. If we do nothing then no progress to real solutions will ever be achieved.

One such solution has to include education on positive consent and have a focus upon abolishing rape culture which begins in secondary schools. In my view the government has an opportunity to instil positive messages around consent and communication.

In conclusion I find that putting consent in the curriculum is crucial for our children so they can learn about sexual violence and respect for individual autonomy. Young people need to learn that it isn't funny or okay to slap someones bum or grope them in a nightclub - that is sexual assault. We must educate students so they understand why rape jokes and verbal sexual harassment should not be tolerated. Taking these steps should prevent the trivialization of rape and indeed put an end to young people going out into the world with a view that rape is 'something that just happens' or that there is such thing as an 'invitation to rape'.

If we can encourage young people to actively challenge rape myths, whilst at the same time providing resources on how to get support, it could shape a generation that rejects sexual violence and eschews victim blaming as a norm in society.

With current guidance for sex and relationship education clearly not adequate in addressing the issue of consent, surely it is time for the Minister for the Department of Education to place this particular topic at the priority end of the Northern Irish curriculum?]]>Fighting Privatisation to Save Student Jobstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31883562013-04-30T18:14:31-04:002013-06-30T05:12:01-04:00Gary Speddinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-spedding/
More than just a building, a Students' Union is a place for many of its members to come for support, advice, help, employment and most importantly; fair democratic representation.

The Students' Union to which I have dedicated a large portion of time to (Queen's University Belfast Students' Union) has, in the past readily employed students in a number of roles which includes; bar staff, SU security (Dance Committee) and customer service in the SU shop. At present, our union employs 18 security staff, around 50% of whom are current students while another 40% are graduates of Queens.

In my assessment it would be fair to remark that those 18 security staff have dedicated years to QUB Students' Union and go above & beyond their roles to facilitate events, ensure safety and engender a truly approachable, student friendly environment.

Unfortunately some of Queen's University Belfast Students' Union management do not seem to value our current security team given that at the beginning of April, security staff here were suddenly told that contracts they have previously held will be terminated at the end of the month (May 2013).

In response to this horrendous decision that effectively cuts student held security positions within our Students' Union, a campaign has been organised to request an immediate end to the outsourcing of jobs to private security companies.

A recently held meeting between management and employees of the Students' Union saw current security staff being given application packs for security company G4S which just so happens to be the very company benefiting from this outsourcing venture. Let me make clear that an application form is no legal guarantee of a secure job, whether with G4S or another company even if it is unofficially implied that jobs will be given.

This has left our current security team with two options- take a job offered with G4S (on a zero-hour contract, without support or protection), or lose their job. The simple reality is we have no autonomy over an external private company so cannot protect students as robustly as we would like.

My outrage at this (apart from the obvious) stems from the idea that QUBSU is a Student's Unionnot a commercial union; a Students' Union run by students for students.

Protecting jobs in Students' Unions here in Northern Ireland, the rest of the United Kingdom and Ireland must be a top priority. We cannot stand idly by while staff and students face potential loss of jobs and income. We must also protect future job opportunities for students, so they can work for their union with piece of mind that a wage is there for them - this provides stability and sustainability.

A Students' Union should be working for students, with students and not disenfranchising them through this on-going commercialisation process within QUBSU or many of the others of which I've recently became aware.

Outsourcing of jobs in our Students' Union to external companies is part of a dangerous creeping commercialisation within Queen's University Belfast Students' Union. Again this is clearly going to be costing student jobs, destroying the hard work put in by those who have been dedicated employees here for many years and creating discord at a time of economic austerity when jobs are needed most by those in education just to scrape by.

Another thing that has irked me is that our ratified SU strategic plan (2012-2015) clearly states that "the Students' Union also places a key priority on 'putting money in your pocket'." And that they "will do this by promoting and offering part-time job opportunities and by providing expert financial management advice."

So to fight back against these job cuts a campaign was organised and in a single day, almost 1200 students signed a petition calling for a referendum on this particular issue. This referendum will be held on 9th May 2013. As an activist within my Students' Union I must say to everyone out there that the response we have gotten to our campaign is overwhelming and proves that not all students are apathetic to such serious injustice.

This campaign has seen students from across Queen's University campus coming together to demand that jobs be protected within the Queen's University Belfast Students' Union.

Our campaign group call upon the Students' Union executive management to stop the removal of student jobs and maintain current rolling employment levels on campus to help boost student employment and remain in line with the approved strategic plan.

We further call upon incoming Students' Union President to uphold the strategic plan of Looking after the pound in your pocket with more on campus jobs and improved support & advice, something that was featured as a key policy in his manifesto pledge this year.

We are additionally calling for QUBSU Management Board to reverse the decisions to outsource our students' union jobs and in future consult the ruling body of our Students' Union (Student Council) on such important matters. The Students' Union has had its reputation severely damaged and they must now reaffirm their support for protecting and enhancing job opportunities for students to recover.

I call upon students everywhere to stand in solidarity with students and employees here at Queen's University Belfast Students' Union over the next few weeks. We will be preparing to take on union management in defiance of cuts and in defense of student jobs.

I also warn other Students' Unions to look out for creeping commercialisation on their campuses as this is becoming so common within Students' Unions throughout the UK and Ireland. A Students' Union is not a business to be commercialised, exploited and profiteered off.

Please Tweet us your support (@QUBSU, #SaveSUJobs) and feel free to send solidarity in the form of videos, posters and statements, we will stand united in the face of attacks on Students' Unions, especially the creeping, undemocratic variety!]]>Deceptive Hysteria Surrounds Abortion Debate in Northern Irelandtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25342252013-03-15T13:54:59-04:002013-05-15T05:12:01-04:00Gary Speddinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-spedding/controversial, recently opened Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast.

Fortunately, this underhanded attempt to circumvent the usually robust public consultation and review process for such an amendment resulted in a failure to win sufficient cross-community support. Throughout the heated, often wayward debate in the Assembly chamber not once did any MLA refer to the NHS guidelines on abortion when trying to shift responsibility for regulation from the DUP controlled health ministry to the Alliance Party controlled Justice Ministry.

Worryingly the majority of speakers also referred to women in Northern Irelands as "our women" which in my book suggests that some MLAs view women as belonging to them.

Alliance Party Justice Spokesperson, Stewart Dickson criticised the amendment as "inappropriate" and that it had been "tagged onto the back of the Criminal Justice Bill" which he believed was "bad legislation that would surely have been challenged in the courts if it was passed".

The amendment itself, proposed by Paul Givan (DUP) and Alban Maginness (SDLP) to the Criminal Justice Bill should not be taken at face value. In reality this was not about the rights or wrongs of abortion (whatever a person's view may be) but rather about restricting the ability of a woman to elect where she can and cannot avail of basic medical services.

"On such a sensitive issue, there is a clear need for a proper and considered consultation process, which this amendment was not subject to. Indeed, in the few short weeks since this amendment has appeared, the strength of feeling, the lobbying, the hundreds of interviews, conversations, blogs, articles and debates have demonstrated the absolute necessity for formal consultation to take place so that all voices can be heard and all opinions expressed in a structured and meaningful way." - Stewart Dickson MLA.

In my opinion, there is a serious lack of education coupled with a deliberate propagation of misinformation in the political and public sphere when it comes to women's reproductive rights in Northern Ireland. This is evident when one reviews how easily hysteria can be whipped up by individuals who prefer the use of elaborate deception to put across anti-choice theological values and position.

I don't wish to rehash some of the issues surrounding abortion in Northern Ireland but the key problems arise from the fact the 1967 Abortion Act which covers England, Scotland and Wales does not extend to Northern Ireland.

Women remain at the mercy of a crudely interpreted concoction of legislation from 1861, 1929 and 1945 respectively. This means that although abortion is technically legal in Northern Ireland, it is only in cases where a woman's life is in immediate danger or when there is a risk of long term damage to physical or mental health that there will be approval. Truth is, in practice the procedure is virtually impossible to obtain, even in cases of rape or incest.

Let me be clear about the impact this is having on women in Northern Ireland - due to the current legislation, thousands of vulnerable women are forced to fly over to mainland UK in order to have access to the most basic healthcare and professional welfare advice that they cannot access on the NHS within Northern Ireland itself.

In terms of my own position, I believe that no-one wants to find themselves in a position in which they are contemplating having to medically terminate a pregnancy. I would hope that everyone can agree that through better sexual education in schools and easier access to contraception the number of people facing decisions such as having an abortion can, and should, be reduced.

However, the fact is that unplanned pregnancies do happen, and given that reality, it is inescapable that a choice must be made. That most intimate of choices about a woman's body can either be made by the government, or the woman in question.

Here in Northern Ireland the government currently dictate what a woman can and cannot control about her own body and I believe the government is entirely wrong in its approach. The Northern Ireland Assembly should never be able to tell any citizen what to do with their body. I also trust women to make emotionally difficult and morally complex choices for themselves without misogynistic interference by men who wish to control the lives and choices of women.

MLAs have a responsibility to the people, to ensure equality for all and proper access to professional healthcare, advice and welfare those citizens and residents of the United Kingdom that should be entitled under the NHS.

Another unfortunate dimension to the discourse surrounding abortion in Northern Ireland that I simply have to mention is the existence of various exceptionally vocal 'Pro-Life' groups. We also have a junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly who compared abortion levels to the Holocaust.

To use just one other example, Bernadette Smyth from the Precious Life organisation I would have to openly state how frightened I am for the sanity of some individuals in Northern Ireland.

Here we have an individual who, after years of active 'pro-life' campaigning remains reliant on the use of emotionally charged rhetoric to deliver her theological position on abortion - and that is just it, the problem in Northern Ireland is that theology and religion have crept into every level of government and influence a great swathe of policy development and political alignment.

Whilst I was at the Northern Ireland Assembly to hear the debate on the CJB as it occurred, Bernadette Smyth was also present and quite aggressively harassing politicians with boxes filled with 'pro-life' petitions. When I approached her to politely put across a differing perspective she accused me of being "proud of killing babies".

I was admittedly shocked and disturbed by some of her responses, in particular her claim that the graphic images used by pro-life campaigners "do not offend women who have had miscarriages".

Well, speaking to a colleague of mine who has had 14 pregnancies, 13 of which ended in miscarriage I was told that the use of graphic images is truly horrific. Also having been a bereavement councillor for the miscarriage association, my colleague confirmed that for some women seeing such images further deepens feelings of depression, grief and despair.

My only conclusion is that the offensive, discriminatory and abhorrent use of emotive imagery to raise awareness of pro-life or any other argument is fundamentally wrong and designed to take us into an area of debate that will further traumatise vulnerable women.

The fanaticism coupled with religious fundamentalism displayed by some 'Pro-Life' groups should cause many of us massive concerns. Our government should not be unduly influenced by any Church or religious institution on matters of Health, welfare and women's rights.

As a male feminist I wholeheartedly commit myself to ensuring women have the right to choice here in Northern Ireland at the earliest possible moment in the near future.]]>Same-Sex Marriage: How Devolved Governments Can Still Freely Discriminatetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.20356132013-01-25T17:23:31-05:002013-03-27T05:12:01-04:00Gary Speddinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-spedding/spoke proudly at his Party Conference on the subject of Marriage Equality, giving his position succinctly, he challenged anyone who had reservations, by saying that: "Yes, it's about equality [equal marriage], but it's also about something else: commitment."

He continued by outlining how, in his vision, equality falls neatly in line with conservative values, invoking the conservative belief in "ties that bind us" and that "society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other."

Now in 2013, the government officially published the first reading of its Marriage Equality Bill for England and Wales. Despite first appearances, it isn't necessarily the final piece of the jigsaw to achieving complete equality for the LGBT community. With a 56 page Bill, and 48 pages of additional guidance notes, Chris Ashford, a reader in Law and Society at the University of Sunderland analysing the robust document for PinkNews.co.uk stated that the bill might be many things but simple it is not.

In his excellent analysis, Ashford did unfortunately overlook one particular aspect of the bill; Devolved assemblies (Northern Ireland & Scotland) are not obliged to adopt it as law. As a result legal same-sex marriages in England and Wales will only be recognised as civil partnerships in Northern Ireland.

The fact that this bill, if approved at Westminster, remains unlikely to affect Northern Ireland, even according to our own MPs, demonstrates how devolution on matters of equality, in some instances permit a double standard. The misuse of democratic power in order to prevent changes in legislation that would prevent existential discrimination against minorities such as LGBT is a frightening reality.

"In terms of equality, in terms of human rights everything that is in marriage is available to a gay couple through civil partnership there is no need to redefine marriage to have a tolerant and inclusive society." - Jonathan Bell MLA (PinkNews.co.uk 2013)

"I am pretty repulsed by gay and lesbianism. I think it is wrong. I think that those people harm themselves and - without caring about it - harm society. That doesn't mean to say that I hate them. I mean, I hate what they do." - Ian Paisley Jnr MP (2007, report by PinkNews.co.uk 2011)

"Our view would be that there certainly would not be a majority in favour [Of Gay Marriage] in Northern Ireland of extending these powers to the province, and there is certainly no intention to legislate for this." - "We have enough votes in the Assembly to veto it anyway." - Jeffrey Donaldson MP (Belfast Telegraph 2012)

Perhaps relevant to the current discussion is the fact that the DUP have eight MPs, making them the largest party from Northern Ireland at Westminster. Compare this to the parties that support the introduction of Marriage Equality legislation only having four seats, things seem pretty dismal for Northern Irish LGBT representation at a national level. Disappointingly the main reason only four of eighteen seats for Northern Irish MPs at Westminster are LGBT friendly is that Sinn Fein are an abstentionist party meaning representation is down by six seats.

The Democratic Unionist Party is the largest in the Northern Ireland Assembly with 36 seats and they may have all voted against the Marriage Equality motion introduced to the floor of the Assembly back in 2012, but what is oft overlooked is just how close campaigners actually came to a victory.

Political impasse on LGBT rights in Northern Ireland is mostly down to the power, and subsequent misuse of it in the assembly by the DUP and to some extent the UUP. They often forget that we live in a secular democracy, where rights should be equally and freely given to people and protected by law, regardless of gender or sexuality.

Irony festoons this latest scenario as the very party, that proudly assert their British credentials at every opportunity, take a distinctly anti-British stance by not aligning themselves with a conservative government in England and Wales on Marriage Equality.

Considering the British Prime Minister has made clear his views on the subject, those proclaiming loyalty to Westminster and the crown seem to have conveniently forgotten the pro-British stance they take when it suits. With a continually modernising Northern Ireland, I have faith that eventually devolution will perform the function that it's meant to in terms of provision for equality & representation for all.

All being said, I ask the public throughout Northern Ireland, but more importantly the rest of the UK, to understand that the views of DUP representatives, despite their claims to the contrary, unequivocally do not represent the majority in Northern Ireland. Please remember that when you see DUP MPs opposing the new marriage bill at Westminster on the 5 February.]]>Arab-Jewish Unity: An Innovative Direction for Israeli Politicstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.24481732013-01-11T06:44:06-05:002013-03-13T05:12:01-04:00Gary Speddinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-spedding/

The Israeli Knesset has 120 seats, so a ruling coalition must have at least 61 members. Latest results from polls reveal a shift to a further right wing government is on the cards with the parties that make up the 'Right-Orthodox Bloc' predicted to hold a minimum of 63 (max 67) seats whilst the 'Centre-Left Bloc' shall possibly hold 53 seats.

(For all those poll addicts out there, you can find an aggregation of all the latest public Israeli election polls featured in this one-stop resource courtesy of blogger and reporter Tal Schneider.)

Of course Israeli politics, far more complex than many first believe, cannot be judged by what we in Britain regard as left and right. We remain at the mercy of analysts and reports from various political experts as they translate in simple terms what we desperately seek to understand about Israel's political system and makeup. Not every problem in Israel necessarily relates to the Israel - Palestine conflict, though it should be noted that very few parties hold policies or practices of any substance when it comes to peace building.

Looking at the situation from an outside perspective, I have for some time now been hoping for a liberal, non-sectarian and cross-community alternative in Israeli politics. My wait for something fascinating, innovative, authentic and hopeful that can revive the Israeli left-wing may now finally be over.

Additionally the fact that no Israeli government in 65 years ever included one of the Arab parties in the coalition, and there has only been one Arab minister in history should enlighten us to the disingenuous claim that Israeli Arabs have equal say in Israel's farcical democracy.

Enter Asma Agbaria Zahalka - a Palestinian citizen of Israel from Jaffa - that Israeli newspaper Haaretz has labelled as a new hope for Israel's left. Her message is such a simple one, but for 2013 Israel, it is both revolutionary on one hand and moderate enough to be accepted on the other. Such a message as this, you don't hear coming from any politicians in Israel today whether Arab or Jewish, certainly not in such an assertive, unabashed, matter-of-fact-manner as what I have seen from Asma. And as for the argument that there are no politicians out there with any charisma, that can out-charm, or out-talk Netanyahu, I think he may have met his match.

The need for cooperation between Palestinian Arabs and Jews is by far the greatest, most important challenge facing Israel. Every element of Israeli life - from the education system to zoning plans - is constructed to promote a level of ethnic separation, with politics being just the tip of the iceberg.

But despite the fantasies of Israel's right wing, both populations continue to live here, side by side and will remain like this for many years to come.

In any deeply divided society, the ability to create joint structures and partnerships is one of the single most important yet challenging elements that can determine the chances of survival for both communities. Equality between people and a change in society can only help to improve the quality of life for every citizen, building a shared future together.

"I'm still not sure if I will end up voting, as it feels to me in principal like conceding to Israel's farcical democracy and a direct affront to all the disenfranchised Palestinians who live under the same governmental roof. But if I do vote, I know who I will vote for: Da'am, the Arab-Jewish workers' party."

At a time where media misconception continues leading us to dead-ends, where circular rhetoric takes us away from a human rights focused discourse, this new and none sectarian alternative for Israel - Palestine has the exceptional opportunity of developing an entirely new discourse - one where human rights--whether they are for Palestinians, migrant workers, African refugees, or Jews--aren't about taking sides but rather about unity.

Less posturing and more debate on the genuine issues, leading on towards finding viable and sustainable solutions to problems rather than just mundanely highlighting them is what I believe Da'am is all about.

I don't ever really endorse political parties in foreign countries (even though I have my personal preferences), however the video below exhibits a number of principles that simply must be disseminated widely, especially in Israel - Palestine where these ideas, whether or not you agree with the overall platform of the party (which you can read here) need to be taken on-board.

Da'am displays a move away from the sectarian divide and the corrosiveness of opposing nationalism. I truly believe this new political discourse has the ability of getting through the current impasse and may well be an integral component in the renewed effort of resolving the Palestinian - Israeli conflict.]]>Victim Blaming: The Way I See Ittag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.23995622013-01-02T22:47:40-05:002013-03-04T05:12:01-05:00Gary Speddinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-spedding/
Campaigns focused on rape prevention are presently of exceptionally poor standard, with the current context, more often than not finding law enforcement and judicial representatives actively facilitating a culture of blaming the victims of rape rather than tackling perpetrators head-on.

Locally here in Northern Ireland we've had three years of a campaign called Be SMART. This campaign gives awfully patronising advice to women about how to not get raped. The most outrageous of all was a title release that suggested "Alcohol is the number one date rape drug: how much have you taken already?" - The total madness going on there is problematic on a million levels, actually suggesting to women that drinking alcohol is self-administering a date rape drug and they are just asking to be raped.

Prevention campaigns such as Be Smart that come courtesy of the Police Service of Northern Ireland telling women to be more careful, not to drink so much or dress less provocatively actually transfer the risk of rape to other women. I find myself asking how law enforcers can be so brainless as to actually encourage society to ignore the need to deal with perpetrators of rape. By constructing a social paradigm where, despite the painfully obvious, women are still somehow to blame has in essence absurdly imposed false reasoning that the onus of preventing rape is on the victim not the rapist.

A classic example of victim-blaming occurred as recently as New Year's Eve 2012 when a police officer from Sussex caused huge backlash after tweeting "It's always sad to see young women become victims of sexual offences, don't drink too much on New Year's Eve and regret your actions!" - Unfortunately it remains clear that for many police forces, victim-blaming is still frighteningly acceptable.

Official law enforcement bodies can be said to have encouraged a culture that makes excuses for rapists and removes the much needed robust focus upon perpetrators. Police services across the UK need to start visibly delivering a more structured message of change.

Another impact of the current framework has been a decrease in the reporting and successful prosecution rate for the crime of rape. This has made it easier for rapists to carry out the action of raping someone and let us not forget the line in a Unilad article on how the odds are in your favour - they only said what a lot of rapists are thinking.

Frustrated by what is being trotted out by the PSNI and DHSSPS, the Belfast Feminist Network recently commissioned Northern Ireland's very first grassroots anti-rape campaign ad, filmed on location in Belfast. Entitled "The Way I See It" the short ad reflects on rape and sexual assault from the perspective of a survivor. Ads like this are part of a crucial challenge against the inadequacies of the current delivery method for rape preventative campaigns that do little more than feed into the idea that rape can prevented by controlling women's behaviour.

Originally taking inspiration from groups such as Rape Crisis Scotland and elsewhere (Men Can Stop Rape, Don't be that Guy) the Belfast Feminist Network decided that talking about rape from a survivor's perspective would be most effective for a Northern Ireland audience.

A spokesperson speaking about the film told me that the group "wanted to present a positive message to women that can counteract some of the damaging victim-blaming messages they encounter. It's a film aimed at both men and women to dispel some of the myths about how rape happens and to reinforce the important truth that rape is never acceptable."

The narrative in the film itself is a composite of a couple of people's experiences as it was felt better done that way rather than have one specific person feel they had to make themselves vulnerable by having the film divulge their specific story.

A statement released on the BFN's website identifies the short film's director as Matt Bonner of Campaign Social who said that "the challenge in filming this piece was to portray a side of this issue that campaign ads rarely portray accurately, that of the victim. Through filming in Belfast, I wanted this particular person's story to have the look and feel of a short film, whilst grounding it locally. It should be something that anyone living here can connect with."

More events are being planned for the coming months by the Belfast Feminist Network aimed at engaging both the public and the decision-makers involved in rape prevention. This is as much an online campaign as it is off-line and a good way to assist the call for change in the way public safety messages about rape and sexual assault are delivered is by sharing this ad video widely.

All over the world women are mobilising (slutwalk movement etc) and finding way of coming together (online and off-line) to make their voices heard by driving home the message that women are not to blame when rape occurs.

Let us hope 2013 is a year that really tackles the perpetrators of rape.

For updates on the work Belfast Feminist Network please follow them on Twitter and Facebook]]>Political Unionism Is Failing Northern Irelandtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18039122012-12-19T18:36:12-05:002013-02-18T05:12:01-05:00Gary Speddinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-spedding/
Fallout from the removal of the flag has been that of widespread violence and disorder. Many in Northern Ireland have been affected, particularly those living in Belfast as we now witness what has been described as the worst and most widespread disorder here in decades.

As a member of the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland I cannot sit by whilst my party colleagues continue to come under systematic and targeted violence. Since the council meeting on 3 December there have been politically motivated death threats, arson attacks and intimidation.

Political discourse from mainstream Unionist parties on the flags issue has been an abysmal cocktail of inconsistency stirred up with a level of dishonesty I didn't even believe political parties capable of in today's Northern Ireland.

The bouts of chaotic and sustained attack upon democracy, now shown to the wider world through the lens of international media, are definitely the result of a failure within unionism today.

I am proud of my own party for not only standing up for democracy but also sticking to our robust policy surrounding flags.

Alliance had no power to determine the timing of the Union flag motion pushed by Sinn Fein at Belfast City council. We did however prove our commitment to the basic tenets of compromise, an integral part of a pluralistic and liberal democracy. Holding true to our strong leadership role my party has delivered change using our long standing policy to allow the flag to fly with dignity and respect on a designated days basis in line with Stormont and numerous other councils across the UK.

My party's policy on flags reflects a lengthy consultation process which occurred before my time but what I do know is that it falls in line with the current constitutional position of Northern Ireland, that we are part of the United Kingdom. Being comfortable with our identity in Northern Ireland is what Alliance is all about and the push to allow an increasingly diverse society to flourish here is part in parcel with delivering change in local communities in which we share and live.

Reviewing history I find our policy is not too dissimilar to that supported by the UUP and PUP in response to the Flags Order 2000. Under a written submission found in an ad-hoc report of the Northern Ireland assembly the Ulster Unionist Party position was revealed in several key statements including the symbolic expression that by accepting the "legitimate expression of British identity through the flying of the flag on the 17 designated days as specified by the Flags Regulations and as in the rest of the UK, the SDLP and Sinn Fein will be honoring their obligation in the Belfast Agreement to show 'sensitivity' and 'promote mutual respect' rather than division".

In the same report the UUP went on to state that "designating a maximum of 17 days out of 365 days in the year clearly indicates that, while upholding the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, the British Government has no intention of flaunting the Union flag".

The discussion around local authorities and district councils was a little less straight forward in the report but still the UUP acknowledged that whilst it may be "an area fraught with difficulty" they acknowledged that an appropriate way of determining the "days and locations for the flying of flags and emblems" would be for district councils to "pay particular attention to their own statutory obligations under two particular pieces of legislation (The Northern Ireland act 1998 and The Fair Employment and Treatment (N.I.) Order 1998).

Looking at the submissions by the PUP on the matter, I noticed that even though they did an about face shortly afterwards, the statements made are very revealing of their position at the time. The PUP line was that whilst Northern Ireland indeed remains part of the United Kingdom there is "no requirements to all day every day ensure that that glaring fact is appreciated" and that the PUP "believes that the Union Flag should be flown on the same designated days as the rest of the United Kingdom".

Unionist parties have ramped up tensions through supporting and actively taking part in the distribution of approximately 40,000 leaflets designed to misrepresent the Alliance Party using false information which has led to deliberate targeting of our elected officials.

No political party should conduct important discussions or decision-making in a context of violence or intimidation and I'm proud that my party will make no exception to this rule.

A community relations policy that reflects the desire of the public sphere to live in a shared society for all needs to appear very soon and include direction on flags, emblems, parades, education, housing, shared space and a way of dealing with the past.

The DUP, UUP and PUP have failed to represent a shared future decision at City Hall and are extending a false narrative, for their own political survival, that British identity is under threat.

Instead of reassuring the people of Northern Ireland to be confident with their own identities there have been clear attempts to capitalize on tribalism, further sectarianizing the flag row. Egregiously betraying working class unionist communities by building them up to break tension point has erupted into a series of violent clashes that have severely shaken Northern Ireland in recent weeks.

In my view the only viable solution at this time is for all political parties to work together in upholding peaceful and democratic means, the rule of law and to deliver on a genuine regional community relations policy that gives the reassurances needed for all sides of our community to come together cohesively as one.]]>Israel Ignoring Principles of Distinction and Proportionalitytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20299162012-11-16T09:18:57-05:002013-01-16T05:12:01-05:00Gary Speddinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-spedding/

Israeli activists take part in a protest against the Israeli attack on Gaza, in center Tel Aviv, November 15, 2012. (photo by: Oren Ziv/ Activestills.org)

Witnessing from afar, it is devastating to witness so much violence, destruction and death. A disturbing thought is that in the end the Israeli officials will likely hail operation Pillar of Defence a massive success with claims of 'restored deterrence,' and that 'terrorist infrastructures' have been destroyed. As usual those who have died will not matter, the chaotic destruction will not matter and the Israeli south will return to its status of being a forgotten place, abandoned to the stagnation of unemployment and economic instability.

Narratives are flowing in through numerous media channels including on our television screens. We have seen the tragedy of the three Israeli's killed by rocket fire from terrorist organisations in the Gaza strip which we must rightly condemn. Projectiles launched indiscriminately at Israeli civilian population centres have no justification and I repeat the condemnation put out by B'tselem.

I firmly believe that the renewed escalation in violence between Israel and the Gaza Strip needs to be scrutinised using international law accompanied with a more in-depth analysis looking a the reality on the ground as a result of actions by those participating in the violence.

We must also condemn the senseless and indiscriminate bloodshed caused by the state of Israel in its strikes against the Gaza Strip which it performs in full awareness that the areas being hit are civilian populated areas. Launching a full scale military assault by land, air and sea in the knowledge that civilians will be killed is immoral and could constitute criminal acts.

The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (Facebook) has condemned the on-going Israeli attacks on Gaza, viewing the violence as "an expression of on-going suppression of a people's right to self-determination and of pacification, not of self-defense".

Tragic reality unfolds as we see a mounting toll of death and injury. As I write there have been over 45 Palestinians and three Israelis killed. We are seeing a continued brutal bombardment from Israel, which is responded to with more rockets from Gaza, which are even reaching the Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and the West Bank.

In southern Israel hospitals are moving patients to other health centres further away from the violence and hundreds of thousands are in bomb shelters.

The BBC has delivered a heart wrenching report of a BBC Arabic journalist whose baby was killed by shrapnel in Gaza who spoke about his son's death.

Many, including myself, are tired of baseless rhetoric exacerbated by the outpouring of media supporting various narratives in the argument. Even the IDF has created a new precedent for how military operations are revealed by announcing it on Twitter . Amongst it all we hear the usual murderous statements by Hamas and we then see the expected Israeli responses, including the attempted justification for the IDF's actions through the callous and hollow words of "regretting civilian death" or that the deaths are unfortunate but necessary to defend Israel all whilst Israeli Politicians line up behind the Israeli assault on Gaza.

Gazans' claim that the air strikes which have hit numerous public buildings, including near United Nations facilities, are designed to spread fear and panic amongst the Palestinian population. This directly repudiates the idea that these are the 'surgical strikes' talked about by Netanyahu. The state of Israel's disproportionate use of violence evidently doesn't stop the launching of rockets from the Gaza Strip, but rather further perpetuates the conflict in a manner that destroys lives and traumatizes entire groups of people thus endangering Israeli and Palestinian lives a hundredfold.

Nothing can be gained through the use of judicial executions or the assassinating of people, even if they are guilty of crimes (terrorism) they have previously committed. The cost to human life should be the single biggest motivating factor toward finding a way to end all violence immediately.

Amongst the latest rounds of propaganda are the sanitized yet problematic phrasing found in the condemnations of violence which for the most part embody everything wrong in our mainstream media through categorizing Gaza as Israel's problem.

But why exactly is it that we see discrepancy in those condemning violence?

I would argue that as a result of the existing polarisation surrounding Israel-Palestine we rarely see a genuine human rights based approach that condemns all civilian death and injury equally.

Israel continually refuses to distinguish between innocent civilians and what it claims are legitimate targets, they have placed blame for civilian death, not on their own forces that are firing the weapons, but on the civilians themselves for living in areas that have militants nearby - which, quite frankly, is absurd.

Alas we have a set of unfortunate circumstances where no thought or care is given for the deaths of 'the other' depending on which side of the fence you sit. No push exists to identify who is at fault or that Israel's clearly outlined agenda is not conductive of peace but rather a deceptive divergence beyond the purported line of 'protecting Israeli citizens'.

It can even be argued that violent actions from Israel and Hamas only further endanger the lives of Israeli civilians as evidenced by the devastating number of deaths and injuries. Yet nobody is willing to outline a full time line of events pinpointing when the latest escalations actually begun, some argue it was with the death of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy on 8 November, whilst others argue it was the result of an attack upon an Israeli army jeep on 10 November.

We are all left asking the question of when we will ever see robust action and sanctions holding Israel and Hamas accountable for their crimes. How can we stand by and allow principles of distinction and proportionality to be blurred beyond recognition?

It is time to for governments to act for the sake of human life and an end to human rights violations that undeniably accompany the corrosive violence in Israel-Palestine.]]>Marriage Can Change to Accommodate Societytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19405242012-10-08T08:29:14-04:002012-12-08T05:12:01-05:00Gary Speddinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-spedding/
One such person who comes to mind when looking at those values is a Northern Irish politician called Basil McCrea, who last week bravely stood out alone in the Northern Ireland assembly on the 1 October 2012 as the only member of the Unionist community to articulately speak in favour of a motion that called for full marriage equality in Northern Ireland.

Basil McCrea MLA for Lagan Valley

The motion itself was defeated in the Assembly, after being introduced jointly by the Green Party and Sinn Fein, it was sadly revealed that the DUP had tabled a petition of concern which effectively gives the party a veto on anything in the assembly which it is determined to block.

Despite this setback for marriage equality in Northern Ireland, the overall outcome of the day was exceptionally positive given the robust debate that took place on the issue itself. Indeed it was the efforts of McCrea himself that took him from being totally alone on the matter earlier in the day to having two of his party colleagues, Danny Kinahan and Michael Copeland, also voting in favour of the motion in the afternoon vote.

Interestingly McCrea used his platform to deliver a speech that attempted to explain the position he believes should be taken on the issue not only to his own community in the assembly but his wider audience and constituents.

It would be accurate, having been present on the day, to state that McCrea is attempting to get the message across to the wider public that this is a matter of individual rights. He fully recognises that the matter of gay marriage is a difficult subject with many members of his own community who "feel deeply uneasy about it" but he firmly believes that someone needs to speak out.

"I want to live in an open, tolerant and pluralist society that celebrates diversity, accommodates difference and protects individuals who happen to be different", said Basil McCrea

Throughout his speech to the assembly McCrea utilised principles that we can all relate to in one shape or form, which for me again is a very unambiguous and robust method of putting a point across. After all those who do not wish to live in such a society described by McCrea, are not people who tend to believe others should even have the basic equality engendered in the universal declaration of human rights.

Interlinking different liberation issues for what I think is the very first time on this type of topic in the Northern Ireland assembly McCrea went on further to state quite rightly that "You do not have to be black to oppose racism or female to speak out against domestic violence, and I do not have to be gay to reject prejudice, misinformation and bullying." Which I know from reactions to his speech was warmly received by a wide variety of communities in Northern Ireland.

As a matter of clarity I think that the public should understand an analysis of McCrea's position on marriage equality in the context that we live in the United Kingdom as part of a largely secular democracy.

I am certain that it is not necessary to detail the full complexity of what a secular democracy entails but a crucial point would be to discuss that in any democracy the will of the majority should be felt whilst also providing robust protection for minorities to ensure that they do not suffer any form of discrimination or abuse from said majority.

Ironically this is in part the reason for the existence of the petition of concern which the DUP felt the need to misuse on this motion.

"I am surprised that the DUP has felt the need to present a petition of concern on a matter that should really be a free vote." - Basil McCrea MLA

Commenting on the fact his support for minorities is not restricted or limited McCrea also gave a very particular view of the institution of the church as he stated he believes that "churches, practising Christians and other religious faiths also have rights" and that regardless of denomination the church is an important institution in society.

This puts value to the idea of genuine religious freedom and another part of McCrea's speech adequately deals with the point of this aspect that many people cite as a reason to oppose marriage equality for the LGBT community.

A point I wish to draw attention to is where it was said that "marriage can change to accommodate society". Which again in my view cannot be understated. A fact of our society is that throughout history we have witnessed the institution of marriage both in legal and religious terms, change quite radically, in order to accommodate the society of the time period.

People tend to fear change, which is why scare-mongering by influential people always results in a certain factions of our society strenuously opposing any modernisation that would actually strengthen and benefit society if reviewed in hindsight.

Removing racism from our legislation created a stronger, more tolerant society just as giving women the vote created a far more robust democracy for our citizens to take an active role in which is what Basil is always very excited about - he likes to see people engaged with politics.

Politicians who show true leadership deserve to be listened to and this is why I write this blog post now so that people can hear the voice of Basil McCrea in plain terms and either agree or disagree, appreciate or not appreciate what he views as an attempt to create a better place for all of us in Northern Ireland.

LGBT rights are a cross community issue in Northern Ireland and we should seek to fully understand the meaning behind the words of certain politicians who support full equality in our society even for groups we may staunchly disagree with personally. Changes that are being proposed will only strengthen our position on equality and will finally prove without a doubt that certain institutions before the law can be changed within a social context to accommodate our modern society.

A video of McCrea's address to the Northern Ireland assembly can be seen below:
]]>Malignment of International Students at Westminster Must Endtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18950732012-09-30T11:37:05-04:002012-11-30T05:12:02-05:00Gary Speddinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-spedding/supporting London Metropolitan University and international students was recently launched by the National Union of Students, a campaign in which I happily contributed, writing emails to the Members of Parliament who hold constituencies in Northern Ireland.

Explaining the seriousness of the current situation I hoped that our MP's would share particularly strong views of admonishment toward UKBA after its revocation of London Met's highly trusted status, especially given Northern Ireland has a particularly good record with International students. Indeed the Belfast Telegraph recently reported that International students find Northern Ireland "welcoming and friendly" which only goes to show that our MP's should be adamantly standing up for their rights throughout the UK.

This year I volunteered as a buddy for International students at my current university here in Belfast which is allowing me insight into the first hand experiences of many students. While the social aspect for Erasmus and non-EU students is overwhelmingly positive, I have witnessed the fear, panic and worry over the actions and message the UK government is sending to international students through UKBA's actions. Several students have approached me in panic over problems with our universities immigration office, I think it would be accurate to say the crisis at London Met is having a ripple effect, leaving many students with massive concerns which I believe our representatives in Westminster should be acknowledging and addressing rather than hiding from like cowards.

International students from all around Britain have expressed concerns as to whether they are actually welcome to study in the UK - a feeling that has grown ever stronger since conservative Prime Minister David Cameron announced his commitment to reduce immigration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands during his 2010 general election campaign.

Targeting international students is seen as easy, successive government reforms have made international students feel unwelcome - a sentiment that is formed by the existence of massive delays for in-country visa applications, continually rising visa application fees, and the malignment of these students in bureaucratic process that frustrates and flusters vulnerable young people whom put their trust in anyone who presents themselves as helpful during difficult times.

A result of all this is that Internationals are no longer proud to have studied in the UK - A recent National Union of Students (NUS) survey of more than 900 international students found that 40% of students would not recommend studying in the UK to a friend.

Having used the NUS campaign I asked all eighteen Northern Ireland MP's to publicly oppose the government's decision, and to oppose the continued malignment of international students no matter where they are within our borders.

Responses so far have been shocking to say the least as the first reply I received from Jeffrey Donaldson, the Democratic Unionist Party MP for the Lagan Valley, was more like reading a right wing trope from one of the many media outlets that have tried to demonise all international students in recent years.

In an email exchange between me and Mr Donaldson he said that UKBA's decision undoubtedly has negative consequences but went on further to state "it would be wrong to ignore the practices that have resulted in the loss of the 'Highly Trusted Status'".

Quoting Immigration Minister Damian Green's citation of London Metropolitan University having failed in three particular areas:

More than a quarter of the 101 students sampled were studying at the university when they had no leave to remain in this country

Some 20 of 50 checked files found "no proper evidence" that the students' mandatory English levels had been reached

And some 142 of 250 (57%) sampled records had attendance monitoring issues, which meant it was impossible for the university to know whether students were turning up for classes or not.

Not only does he ignore LMU's legal challenge against the decision itself but also fails to recognise that most international students are not represented in the statistics given.

I find that such statistics leave us with massive questions given this data has only been shared in private and not released to the public. Am I the only one who feels statistics from 101 sampled students being used to make decisions is questionable? How were these students selected in the sampling process? Can these student figures be said to represent the wider population of foreign students?

Regarding attendance - I find it inherently flawed to base any decisions on visas upon attendance records, I am obviously a UK student and my attendance record for last year was abysmal yet I passed my exams and I'm still at university, why aren't international students held to the same standards I am and assessed on academic ability?

UKBA may have recently given temporary reprieve to LMU but the wider phenomenon of anti-international student ideology seems rife among many of our MP's given Jeffrey Donaldson's latter remarks:

As a member of the Privy Council and the Defence Committee in the House of Commons, I am intimately aware that extremists posing as students have used our lax immigration checks in the past to enter this country and then to plan serious terrorist attacks. The Government would be failing every UK citizen if it ignored the inadequate practices at London Metropolitan and turned a blind eye.

Is Mr Donaldson seriously trying to justify the crisis at LMU by regurgitating such a stigmatised attack on International Students?

What really got me is that he also placed blame squarely with the university as he wrote

"It is a valid argument to suggest that the response is disproportionate but, having regard to the apparent failing to comply with their legal duty, can it really be said of London Met that they justify being accorded 'Highly Trusted Status'? Surely the onus is on the university to get their act together and then apply for HTS to be reinstated?"

This of course ignores the reality of those legitimate students affected by the governments' decision whilst collectively and prematurely punishing students for what remains a contested issue over procedure with failings that aren't the fault of students but rather that of LMU or more likely UKBA.

Let us hope that these ripples don't turn into a Tsunami, what would happen if UKBA targeted more universities, perhaps one in Northern Ireland? - Arguably a far easier place to launch an attack on international students.

We simply must challenge and put an end to the deliberate malignment of International students at Westminster, they are not the fall guys for Cameron's promised reduction in immigration. Its time our MPs stood up for our students!]]>International Students Are Continually Marginalised and Undervaluedtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18528232012-09-12T19:00:00-04:002012-11-12T05:12:01-05:00Gary Speddinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-spedding/
Unfortunately the current political and economic climate has allowed a discomforting message to emanate out overseas establishing an unfriendly "do not come to our country" feel that frightens and alienates potential students with those brave enough to come regardless of the difficulties in purgatory.

The UK government's perverse incentive to drastically cut international student numbers, treating them as a statistic rather than persons of unique individual value is sickening, especially when one of our own government committees found that around £8billion is contributed to the economy each year by international students.

Despite the evidence showing that one of the only areas of growth in the British economy is brought by international students, over the past two years we have seen the Government implement numerous controversial policies in order to deter students from choosing to study in the UK.

Using this issue as a political tennis game means legitimate international students are suffering the brunt of our Government's crackdown on immigration.

Smear campaigns against international students that irresponsibly cast doubt upon the legitimacy of foreign students, are based on faulty information and downright lies. Our current government must be insane in its attempts to pander to a xenophobic minority who scare monger about international students. Another fact conveniently left out of current government discourse is that money international students bring into UK higher education actually allows domestic student places to be subsidised.

I don't wish to paint a picture where we pity international students; if anything students who push all the limits to study in this country deserve our utmost respect and solidarity. Foreign students generally pay through the nose just to be here, in amounts that domestic students would never even contemplate paying.

As a British citizen I feel ashamed that international students are treated with nothing but contempt by the current system, how can I look any student, especially from a less economically developed country straight in the face knowing they have paid anything up to £40,000 just to be here for one year's study. All the while my degree course is subsidised, perhaps by that very student's very presence.

How dare the media and members of the public stereotype international students as "benefit-claiming illegal immigrants'. Information to the contrary is readily available if the papers would only print it. I use an elderly fellow I know as my favourite example of how media has shaped an ugly view of foreign students when he concludes that international students should "go thieve money from somebody else's country" - A view shaped by what the papers print.

The rights of international are under an unprecedented and sustained attack that aims to satisfy a government target of reducing "net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands" by 2015. We must not allow this attack to go unchallenged.

London Met isn't an isolated incident; it's the tip of a large polar iceberg that refuses to melt. As I said at the start of this blog we are in the midst of international welcome week, I would like to highlight not only where the government is going wrong but also individual academic institutions where the impact of draconian regulations and bureaucratic procedures are making life for new arrivals intolerable.

Here in Northern Ireland I spoke to an Erasmus student from Greece whose accommodation hadn't been approved due to "complications" really shone light on his experiences as I sat up till 2am speaking to him. I had allowed him to log into my user name on a university computer so he could tell his family that he was alive, he seemed very tired and stressed as he wondered whether he would have somewhere to stay tomorrow.

I also met two Saudi Arabian students who are terrified as they await their IELTS grades which will determine if the university will allow them to stay. This is dependent solely on their English skills (for me they spoke perfect English).

Lastly a student from Switzerland whom I spoke to last week at an amnesty international event was very worried after being made to jump through hoops at the university's visa office.
These short insights are yet another thing missing from the current discourse on International students.

If UKBA can easily set a revocation of London Met's highly trusted status for sponsoring international students on evidence that is under the strongest possible terms challenged, then any number of establishments could be next.

Regardless of anything else the impact for our students is far-reaching and destroying the aspirations of countless individuals. These are just some of the reasons why I'll be fighting the government's immigration policies for international students every step of the way until drastic reforms are implemented. International students in the UK are not without support from their tutors and piers, this is a fight that we can use our voices to win if we push hard enough.

In the meantime it is my view that UK universities need to stop marginalising & undervaluing internationals by live up to their reputations of being "centres of excellence". In response to London Met specifically a sharing of responsibilities by offering any spare places to affected students should commence.

After all students in theory should be any university's top priority right?]]>Northern Ireland Green's Lead Push for Marriage Equalitytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18641972012-09-09T19:36:36-04:002012-11-09T05:12:01-05:00Gary Speddinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-spedding/same-sex marriage, which was ignored by all other political parties in the 2011 - 2012 plenary of Northern Ireland's Legislative Assembly, has been resubmitted for the 2012 - 2013 session.

The Green Party of Northern Ireland spent a great deal of energy attempting to gain traction for its motion first tabled on the 06/03/2012 by Green Party Leader and North Down MLA Steven Agnew.

Unfortunately due to a disappointing lack of support from other parties the motion was never brought forward in the Assembly chamber and as a result fell at the close of the last plenary.

Hope for seeing a debate at legislative level was rekindled a few days ago when the Green Party once again proved to be the most proactive in seeking a meaningful discussion when the same motion for Marriage Equality was re-tabled as the Green's first motion submission for the 2012-2013 plenary.

Mr Agnew's motion calls for the Assembly to recognise "that all couples, including those of the same sex, should have the right to marry in the eyes of the State" and includes a clause protecting religious institutions by affirming they should "continue to have the right to define, observe and practise marriage within the bounds of their institutions".

Some readers may disagree with the inclusion of protection clauses for religious establishments; however, we must not be too quick to dismiss this as a weakness.

Protection for religious groups does not amount to excusing zealous and bigoted expressions.

If one understands the nature of Northern Ireland when applying any legislation for genuine equality the motion can be said to merely protect the freedom of those who have faith to operate their own institutions as they see fit.

In essence, it adds a double-edged clause that allows for a definitive protection of rights before the law for marriage equality.

Adding to the secular nature of the protection for minorities within a democracy, the motion further calls for "the same legal entitlement to the protections, responsibilities, rights, obligations and benefits afforded by the legal institution of marriage" including those of the same sex.

With this motion, a clear call is made on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to introduce legislation to guarantee that couples of any sex or gender identity receive equal benefit from marriage.

A call is also made on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to "ensure that all legislation adheres to the Government's commitments to promote and protect equality for all".

Now that campaigners for Equal Marriage have organised together during the summer months, other political parties are finally coming round in full support.

Regrettably, Sinn Fein - the only other party to have held a formal policy on same-sex marriage prior to September failed to support the need for a debate at Assembly level but instead pushed for a number of local councils to adopt support for Marriage Equality, which of course is positive but lacks any real legal power.

Speaking to Steven Agnew on this he noted that before the end of the last mandate Sinn Fein "claimed to be the only party in favour yet despite a motion being on the table no efforts were made to support it".

Thankfully, Steven added that at a recent Belfast Pride Talks Back event, Sinn Fein's Martina Anderson publically stated that she was "confident her party would support" the Green Party motion if it was resubmitted.

Encouraging this support, Steven pointed out that now the motion is again on the table "it is time for Sinn Fein to step up on this at the Assembly".

At the 2011 Party conference, The Green Party in Northern Ireland unanimously supported a motion to vigorously campaign and, where possible, vote to extend the right to marry and be legally recognised as such, to same-sex couples, and that there be no difference in status between same sex marriage and different sex marriage.

Discussing the Alliance Party's recent adoption of policy supporting Marriage Equality, Steven said he appreciates the democratic process and that there wasn't unanimous support but that it is "frustrating when a liberal party has such difficulty on this issue".

Worryingly the Alliance Party Leader David Ford is said to have suggested the party whip shall not be enforced on the policy, meaning that Alliance representatives will be free to vote for or against marriage equality at any level including the Assembly or Westminster.

Such mixed signals are not helpful, especially with the SDLP faltering on the issue and the fact both Unionist parties are said to be out of tune on equality.

The Green Party says the time to get a robust debate on this issue is swiftly coming and that all lobbying to get this motion off the floor of the Assembly is appreciated.

Clearly, it is about time Northern Ireland's legislator's debated marriage equality.

As Mr Agnew says: "If a Tory Prime Minister can express his support for equal marriage, then surely we can at least manage a debate]]>Verdict on Rachel Corrie Case Could Set a Frightening Precedent for Israel's Militarytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18388132012-08-29T08:17:50-04:002012-10-29T05:12:04-04:00Gary Speddinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-spedding/Tuesday morning, essentially blaming the victim for her own death, the intransigency of Israel's politicised justice system was immediately exposed when the judge legitimised a legal avenue for Israel to exploit now and in any similar future case.

Styling his decision around propaganda frequently used by the Israeli State, judge Oded Gershon not only absolved Israel of any responsibility/wrongdoing but also laid the foundation that may well become a permissible albeit morally reprehensible loophole for the Israeli Military.

Contextualising his decision Gershon said that Corrie "was accidentally killed in the framework of a 'war-related activity' [as a result] Israel bears no responsibility for the damages inflicted on the plaintiffs resulting from a war-related action".

Adding to the verdict was the common claim against the International Solidarity Movement, which in my opinion is an attempted distraction which supposedly implying the nauseating idea that Rachel Corrie somehow deserved what happened to her. Demonstrating how this claim effects public opinion on a range of spectrums is straightforward when looking at the language of the Judge who in his verdict also noted Rachel's "involvement with the International Solidarity Movement, [adding that] ISM activists had even defended Palestinian families involved in terror, aiding, even if indirectly the activities of terrorists".

Compare this use of terms by the judge with a commenter who said that "Internationals should not be in war zones. Their safety cannot be guaranteed by anyone" and then goes on to make the insane claim that Rachel Corrie was "fighting on behalf of Palestinian terrorists and thus became a terrorist herself, she got what she deserved."

2010: A friend clings to a Bulldozer as she protests in the WestBank village of Al-Wallaja while the driver looks on.

Seeing this mind-set laid out bare you may begin to understand the first segment of the precedent that is potentially already set here; Public opinion amongst those already of the predisposition of "Pro-Israel" has been given what is (for them) an acceptable set of statements that justifies and exonerates the Israeli state and Military.

For the sake of clarity I must emphasise that not all those who fall on the side of Israel share such despotic opinions, yet for the most part those of highest activity have used the repugnant argument cited and even more in an attempt to protect their perfect image of the 'Only democracy in the Middle East' which also has the most 'most moral army' in the region.

Allow me to affirm that as a Human Rights advocate and activist I am not a huge fan of the ISM but to their credit and Israel's continued dismay they are a group of international activists who are advocating nonviolent methods of resistance, in solidarity with Palestinians opposing the occupation both in the West Bank and Gaza before the disengagement of 2005.

Which if you really look at it is what Israelis supposedly always refer to in their rhetoric; For the 'enemies' [Palestinians] to abandon terrorism and violence in order to seek a peaceful solution. Unfortunately ISM have been continually demonised as meddlesome internationals sticking their oar in local affairs, most of whom are accused of anti-Semitism and of course must be supporters of terrorism due to their portrayal as allies of Hamas.

With at least some public acceptance of Gershon's verdict the next part of the precedent being set is a legal framework that interjects a false presumption about all Israeli military actions in a single verdict reading;

"Israel's military was acting in capacity of a military operation, [and] the state is not responsible because the incident occurred during a war-time situation... [and Corrie] was in a closed military zone"

Highlighting how this loophole works is slightly complex so I shall use another comment from an Israeli who tried to rationalise his feelings by way of an example;

"If I drive into an area knowing it to be an active artillery training range, and I get hurt as a result, I can blame no one but myself."

Strikingly this was part of a conversation about civilians in closed military zones (CMZ's) where he tried to combine the first rationale in this precedent (It was her own fault) with the evidence that puts the responsibility for safety in a designated CMZ with the civilians.

Thus we have an almost fully complete new precedent where there is potential for Israel to close the doors of justice to civilian victims of its own military.

Two problems arise to challenge this;

1. Israeli military law allows a commander to almost instantly declare any area on the map (In the occupied territories) a closed military zone without prior warning to civilians.
2. Duties of the occupying power spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law dictate that the presence of a civilian in a combat zone does not in any way not affect their right to protection.

So a factually based example of the reality would be to say that If I drove into an area and the military [without advanced warning] suddenly declared it to be an active artillery training range, which is not marked as such, and I get hurt as a result, I can blame no one but the military responsible for its own gross negligence.

Rachel Corrie of course wasn't driving into an artillery range; she was utilizing nonviolence to resist an Israeli action which collectively punished over 1700 households in Rafah through a policy of House demolition (Also against International law).

Palestinians and Israel human rights activists have learned that justice cannot be obtained through the Israeli judicial system.

Amnesty International has condemned the Israeli court's decision labelling it as showing a lack of accountability of Israel's military. In fact several Human Rights groups have spoken out against this injustice stating that the court ruling 'flatly ignores international law'.

Corrie's parents have not received justice but other avenues including the option of using Israel's Supreme Court for an appeal exist. Dishearteningly this may take additional years to achieve.

It is there that any true precedent shall be set.]]>Israeli Judge: State Not Responsible for Rachel Corrie's Deathtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18354212012-08-28T04:37:03-04:002012-10-27T05:12:03-04:00Gary Speddinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-spedding/ Sarah, Craig, and Cindy Corrie in court awaiting the verdict in Rachel's case. Credits: The Rachel Corrie Foundation After waiting for almost ten years for todays court verdict the family of Rachel Corrie have left an Israeli court in Haifa this morning feeling the bitter sting of injustice from Israel's politicised justice system.

Early Tuesday morning the Israeli court rejected accusations that Israel was at fault over the death of US citizen Rachel, who was crushed by an army bulldozer during a 2003 pro-Palestinian demonstration in the occupied Gaza strip.

Summarising a 62-page verdict the Israeli Judge Oded Gershon noted Rachel's "involvement with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM)" adding that "ISM activists had even defended Palestinian families involved in terror, aiding, even if indirectly the activities of terrorists"

Further into the court decision the Judge absolved the Israeli Military of its actions by claiming in his decision that, "The army had not been involved in demolishing houses, just clearing an area of places from which IDF had been attacked".

According to the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem, from 2000-04 the Israeli military demolished around 1,700 homes in Rafah, leaving about 17,000 people homeless. Corrie was one in a group of international activists non-violently protesting against the demolitions. According to witness statements made at the time and evidence given in court, she climbed a mound of earth in the path of an Caterpillar bulldozer.

Claims that the judge appeared to have already adopted Israeli state rhetoric by attempting to malign ISM were already appearing in social media at this point in the verdict while the judge repeated the IDF's claim that the driver of the bulldozer had not seen Rachel.

Corrie's family had accused Israel of intentionally and unlawfully killing their 23-year-old daughter, when they launched their civil lawsuit against the state of Israel as an "absolute last resort". The case opened at Haifa district court in March 2010 after a military investigation had cleared the army of wrong-doing.

Judge Gershon delivered the final verdict saying that "the state is not liable for what occurred during 'combatant activities'" he further decided that "Israel's investigation was appropriate and had no mistakes".

The decision made clears the IDF of responsibility for the death of Rachel Corrie as the judge placed blame with the victim saying "Rachel could have avoided danger with no problem" concluding that there is "no negligence from IDF" and that the "IDF didn't violate Rachel's right to life, rather she injected herself into a dangerous situation, it was the negligence of deceased what caused death".

Coming to a final conclusion the judge said "Israel's military was acting in capacity of a military operation, Rachel Corrie found her death by choice" ruling that what occurred was a "regrettable accident", but that the state was "not responsible" because the incident had occurred during what he termed a war-time situation.

Outright rejecting the suit the judge further added that "There is no justification to demand the state pay any damages."

"While not surprising, this verdict is yet another example of where impunity has prevailed over accountability and fairness. Rachel Corrie was killed while non-violently protesting home demolitions and injustice in Gaza, and today, this court has given its stamp of approval to flawed and illegal practices that failed to protect civilian life."

Reactions on Twitter varied but a prominent point was made by journalist and blogger Joseph Dana who said "Israel has been arguing for years that Palestinians and their supporters must adopt non-violence. This is exactly what Rachel Corrie did".

This devastating verdict raises new questions over whether this ruling will allow the IDF to misuse their ability to simply declare everywhere a closed military zone in order to be absolved from prosecution for harming civilian life. Having absolved its soldiers of murdering a non-violent activist this leaves a massive gap in what some have previously regarded as a fair and just legal system.

Having waited 10 years the Corries still don't have justice for their daughter.]]>